1. Field of the Invention
The instant invention relates to that field of devices consisting of articles of manufacture known as high pressure hoses and nozzles. Specifically, the instant invention is a device for use with such high pressure hoses, the device being configured to reduce the recoil effect caused by materials exiting under pressure, from a nozzle at an end of those hoses.
2. Background Information
The prior art known to applicant discloses that high pressure lines are well known, and commonly used. These lines rely upon the pressure produced by a mechanical device to propel materials through them. Often, this is accomplished by connecting the high pressure line to a compressor or like device. Examples of materials delivered under high pressure include water, air, sand, and various other colloidal materials.
In the prior art, the output end of the high pressure hose is connected directly to a delivery means, such as a nozzle. The material which is under pressure is directed through the nozzle in a stream.
Unfortunately, the releasing of materials through the nozzle, under high pressure, produces significant reaction forces which must be offset by the individual using the high pressure line. These forces may be relatively simple to overcome (as is the case with a garden hose having only the pressure found in a home's water lines), more difficult to overcome (as is the case with a "sand blaster" having the pressure produced by a fairly sizable mechanical air compressor), or very difficult to overcome (as is the case with a fire hose having the pressure produced by a city water main and pumper fire truck, in conjunction). In each of these cases, the individual using the high pressure hose must invest physical effort in order to offset the reaction force produced at the nozzle.
The amount of effort required to offset the reaction force (or recoil) becomes a serious consideration when the ability to manipulate the nozzle is important. When one uses a garden hose, for example, the recoil is relatively easy to offset by holding onto the nozzle tightly, and directing the flow. However, as the pressures involved increase, so do the efforts required in order to overcome the recoil effect. In the case of the user of a sandblaster, for example, this additional force requirement on the part of the user may detract from the user's ability to dexterously direct the flow of materials exiting the nozzle under pressure. In the case of a fire hose high pressure line, the additional force requirement may be so significant as to require multiple individuals all holding onto the hose, and directing its output in unison. Where the users of the high pressure hose (firemen) are trying to not only direct the output efficiently and dexterously, but also need to move about, and avoid being hit by a burning building's structural elements, this additional manpower and effort to overcome the recoil effects can become not only difficult, but deadly as well.
Additionally, the requirement of more than one user on a particular hose in order to overcome the recoil effect caused by the high pressure water limits the personnel available for other tasks. Most "fire companies" have a limited number of fire fighters available at any point in time. If 3 out of 4 of those fire fighting personnel are busy holding onto one hose, they are not free to accomplish other important tasks such as search and rescue. Furthermore, by utilizing the instant invention and freeing up those persons who would normally be holding onto one hose, there will be more available personnel for additional hoses. This would lead to more rapid extinguishing of fires, and a reduction in property loss as a result.
There have been various devices which incorporated chambers, but which did not reduce the recoil produced by the high pressure material as it exited the nozzle. These have been utilized by fire fighters and are commonly known as "foggers". For example, the John C. Schellin patent, U.S. Pat. No. 1,996,884 (Fog-Producing Nozzle) sought to break the high pressure water into a particulate "fog" and thereby smother fires. To do this, the Schellin '884 device directed the high pressure water into an angled nozzle which directed the water against an impeller blade. The impeller blade set to spinning, and the water passing through it was broken into a particulate "fog-like" consistency. In addition, a certain amount of the high pressure water was directed randomly towards the inner walls of the chamber. Unfortunately, this device severely hampered the fire fighter's ability to direct the liquid any distance from the nozzle. The blade/chamber combination had the overall effect of reducing the output pressure significantly. Output pressure, in the field of fire fighting for example, is a serious concern, and devices which diminish that pressure in the fashion which the '884 patent did are not useful to fight fires at any distance from the nozzle.
Until the instant invention, no one had proposed a device which could reduce the recoil produced by materials passing through a nozzle, under high pressure while maintaining an output pressure similar to the input pressure.
One attempt had been made at stabilizing the gyroscopic precessional effects produced by a fluid passing through a high pressure line in Douglas F. Koeppe, U.S. Pat. No. 3,804,336 (Stabilized Fire Hose). However, this device required the user of the high-pressure line to move the nozzle in directions different from the intended direction of the spray flow. This steering of the nozzle in a different direction from that which the user actually wanted the water to flow is counter intuitive, and requires training. In a situation such as the one in which a fireman is already under significant environmental stress, this addition of another counter intuitive variable is undesirable.
Reduction of recoil has been accomplished in other arts (such as hand guns), however, these devices have relied upon the venting of gasses in order to offset the recoil. Venting the pressure of a high pressure line would be an unsatisfactory arrangement as it would require that the pressure propelling the material be increased in order to offset the loss, and still maintain nearly the same pressure at the nozzle as in the line. In activities such as fire fighting, this would be an unacceptable solution as it would require that city water lines and pumper trucks be redesigned in order to produce the additionally required pressure.